Posted on 08/26/2012 1:08:23 PM PDT by GlockThe Vote
TAMPA -- Mitt Romney's presidential campaign gave Texas Rep. Ron Paul a chance to speak at the Republican National Convention, but he declined due to the conditions of the offer, the New York Times reports:
Mr. Paul, in an interview, said convention planners had offered him an opportunity to speak under two conditions: that he deliver remarks vetted by the Romney campaign, and that he give a full-fledged endorsement of Mr. Romney. He declined.
"It wouldn't be my speech," Mr. Paul said. "That would undo everything I've done in the last 30 years. I don't fully endorse him for president."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Exactly!! I was just thinking that those two conditions were demanded by Romney people if Sarah ever was going to speak; she said that she had set aside her schedule for the convention and that she communicated with the Romney staff and then suddenly we get Preibus lying by telling Mark Levin that Sarah wanted to stay on Alaska anyway during the convention when that’s not what she said or is doing
Again for the upteenth time, Romney is the means to the end of Obama. However, and I was not a RP supporter, his audit the fed was one issue I embraced. He has influenced the Plateform of the Republican party with some of his ideas and work. He is pro-life and never waivered on that either.
It was time for him to step aside, too bad it has to be like this.
His son has triple the common sense that the father does.
I agree completely! In fact for a good many of us there is little difference between the policies and records of the assumptive GOP nominee, Romney, and the Presidential Imposter Obama. We as free persons have the unique opportunity to right this sinking ship of state by electing a candidate who truly believes in our Constitution, our Republic and our Liberty. That would be Paul, Johnson or Goode. They are the only true Libert candidates running.
I’m an attorney and sometimes give CLE classes to other lawyers and always have to submit my presentation well in advance for approval and possible revision.
I don’t see the huge problem with making sure some crazy type of bs is prevented from happening.
Ron Paul is proof that democrats have had sex with salamanders.
“but it sounds like he’s acting like a sore loser”
Hardly. Paul has made it clear all along, in this election cycle and the last one, that he won’t endorse any R candidate who doesn’t even remotely support some fundamental constitutionalist positions.
Further, it appears to me that the Romney folks are doing a complete takeover of the party and making sure that real conservatives, constitutionalists and grass roots Tea Party folks are persona non grata at the convention and going forward. Refusing to seat duly elected national delegates simply confirms the Sovietization of the Republican party that many of us anticipated under Romney’s RNC.
In any event, I won’t be voting for Romney (nor Obama) regardless of Ron Paul’s endorsement or lack thereof. I will be happy to support conservatives (R or 2nd party) down the ticket. The GOP-e seems to be comprised of sociopaths and will not receive my votes ever.
BTW, we shouldn’t hold out too much hope that a R Congress will oppose much of what a Romney admin proposes, should we? They seem to barely be able to muster opposition the current WH occupant.
So who are you voting for?
Agree with you. He seems like he has integrity as well.
Agree with you. He seems like he has integrity as well.
In a nutshell. 0bama, Biden, Holder, Sebelius, Napolitano, Axelrod, Jarrett, Plouffe, Solis and all the other cockroaches must go.
Your post is right on. Maybe 2016 will be better (although I doubt that anyone will run against Romney)....ok maybe 2020....lol.
Haven’t decided yet. It won’t be Obama. It won’t be Romney. It won’t be Johnson.
Well said !!!
Donald Regan?
Here is where I am
Obama = 100% disaster chaos, collapse, depression, despair
Romney = 50-100% disaster, chaos, collapse, depression, despair
I am voting for romney based on that small chance he will do the right thing knowing full well, eyes wide open, he will probably be horrible as well.
Its not a choice I make w pride or romneybot status or anything, its a matter of reality of the choice in front of me.
Do I go w certain disaster or probable disaster when one of the two will be picked?
Easy choice IMHO
Uncle Crazy never disappoints.
“I don’t see the huge problem with making sure some crazy type of bs is prevented from happening”
This is not about “making sure some crazy type of bs is prevented”.
This is about the Romney republican establishment preventing any and all expressions of grass roots conservative, constitutionalist, pro-life, pro-liberty principles. It is about cementing in the minds of all Republicans that this R convention is a top-down controlled Romney infomercial and that all future R conventions will also be GOP-e infomercials in which no dissent of any kind will be encouraged or even tolerated. Even if one could argue that such discussions are for local and state party conventions, the GOP-e has made it clear how they are going to deal with any state delegation that does not toe the GOP-e line, haven’t they?
Why would ANY real conservative or constitutionalist endorse Romney??
Because the reality of Obama in the WH for four more years is terryfying for the economy, which impacts everyone.
My business, my clients’ business, their clients, etc are barely holding on now. 4 more years and its GAME OVER.
Not saying that Romney will help fix the mess, but with obama its certain collapse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.